Review - Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research

Course and qualifications accreditation
The accreditation of courses and qualifications is a common feature across quality assurance systems.
Australia and Singapore have nationally consistent systems in comparison to the other countries.
Variations to the central agency development and accreditation model include provider, awarding
body, and industry/social partner development and in some cases accreditation.
Monitoring
All nations include some type of auditing as part of the ongoing quality assurance processes, which is
conducted by a contracted or delegated agency. The timing and processes for audits vary and most
systems have some form of risk rating to minimise the audit burden. The risk rating could influence
the timing, frequency and the nature of the audit.
All audit processes are designed to ensure a minimum standard and in some cases they include
continuous improvement strategies. Rating scales against audit criteria are used by some agencies, and
the results of audits are publicly available in the internet in some countries. In those countries that use
sub agencies, such as awarding bodies, there are quality assurance procedures, including auditing
procedures, for these bodies.
Other activities
Other quality assurance procedures used or required by agencies include self evaluations, including
student and user surveys, making data generated through quality assurance processes available to the
public, and internal and external assessment validation and moderation procedures.
The application of quality assurance systems to transnational education is becoming increasingly
important across many countries. In the broad area of VET, countries are addressing the complex
question in different ways, ranging from its encompassment within arrangements for domestic courses
to explicit guidelines and procedures for cross border or transnational courses.
Implications
A review of quality assurance models across various nations highlights a range of strategies that are
different to those employed by the Australian Quality Training Framework (AQTF). In many respects,
these strategies are good practice examples, however it must be remembered that any quality
assurance strategies implemented in other nations reflect the context within which they are employed
and may not be suitable for implementation within an Australian VET context.
Some areas of useful comparison include:
• an apparent movement towards continuous improvement and an associated emphasis on
review rather than or along side auditing processes
• an interactive processes between the regulating or auditing/reviewing agency and the training
organisation, including the exchange of information including self assessment
• public availability of results from, and information generated through, the quality assurance
processes, including audit or review processes
• the high degree of independence of the auditing agency from the regulator or regulating
agencies
• a range of strategies outside any auditing processes for the quality assurance of assessments,
including internal and external verification or moderation procedures
• the inclusion of requirements for, or processes to, encourage teachers and trainers to invest in
education training.
It also is suggested that the European quality assurance reference framework for vocational education
and training could be used as a basis for evaluating the AQTF.
Comparisons of international quality assurance in vocational education and training Page 7 of 115